I was going to suggest a tag wiki but I wanted to first clarify whether the tag has any right to exist at all. The first four questions lead me towards "no", but today's question seems to present a compelling reason.

Can you make an argument why you want to discuss this specific tag? Do you think it's off-topic, and if so, why? The fact that things about it are undocumented is not really an argument, and since everyone names the product edg as well we can assume the tag is about the product, not the company.
– Erik AMay 10 '19 at 12:47

@ErikA I'm simply not very familiar with how fringe tags like this one are supposed to be handled. As mentioned, I didn't want to populate the tag wiki if the tag has no right to exist. It's not a pressing issue in the least but maybe the community has strong feelings.
– Max LanghofMay 10 '19 at 12:55

It doesn't really matter (afaik) if a tag is fringe or not. Tags should be on topic and unambiguous. Afaik those are the only requirements (meta tags are off-topic by default). We've burninated tags with company names many times because they tend to be ambiguous (about multiple products/technologies) but that doesn't seem to apply to this one.
– Erik AMay 10 '19 at 13:01

7

There are a lot of products that use the EDG front-end, the odd thing is that there are so few questions. One factor is that these products don't generally do a lot of bragging about it. Another is the substantial amount of support you get from EDG when you cough up the license fee. Bit of a secret, I heard through the grapevine that it takes 5 digits. But they are pretty famous in C++-land, primarily because they are the only ones that ever managed to completely implement the C++98 standard. 80% of their employees are voting members in the ISO committee. Well, 4 out of 5 :)
– Hans PassantMay 10 '19 at 13:33

1 Answer
1

I don't think we can burninate the tag. Developer tools are on-topic, and this qualifies as one. It might not be a popular tool (asked a C++ guy I know if he'd heard of it and he hadn't), but that doesn't matter. What we should do is rename the tag, because acronym tags are notoriously misused, and this one is exceptionally vague.

I propose we rename the tag to [edison-design-c++] and synonym [edg] to it.

It is extremely popular, just hidden. I bet good money Nathan has used EDG tools many times, he just didn’t know because they don’t market to the end-user. I don’t at all like your proposed rename. That’s not the name of the product, and it won’t be recognizable to people who refer to the product as EDG, as is standard in the industry. Do you have some reason to believe the acronym is being misunderstood or misused?
– Cody Gray♦May 10 '19 at 19:23

My suggestion boils down to 1. Acronym tags (especially on vague terms like this) often wind up taking on multiple meanings 2. A more clearly named tag might get used more. The synonym would ensure anyone looking for [edg] gets the new tag. I don't think anyone has misused the tag, it's just not popular at present.
– MachavityMay 10 '19 at 19:45

It is worth mentioning that Edison Design Group is similar to IBM about its acronym: one sees EDG used almost exclusively in text.
– anonymousMay 10 '19 at 23:40

@JonHarper That actually strengthens the case for burnination, tho. We burninated [ibm] as a company tag (which is more or less what EDG is). Renaming to the actual EDG tool in question still seems appropriate. What that tag should be is certainly up for debate
– MachavityMay 11 '19 at 2:15

If the company is always called EDG, would [edg-c++] be a better name?
– Damian YerrickMay 12 '19 at 3:31

1

If you want to rename the tag, I think that [edison-design-group] would be better. They only do the one product (which is a C/C++ front end, not just C++), and it is usually referred to via the company initials, EDG, including frequent mentions in ISO C++ committee documents, proposals, etc.
– 1201ProgramAlarmMay 12 '19 at 5:05